Preview:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
THE BOLDT COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.                                                                                                 Case No.   12-C-0039
THE MORSE GROUP, INC.,
Defendant.
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND (DOC. 12)
AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY (DOC. 6)
The Boldt Company (“Boldt”) and the Morse Group, Inc., (“Morse”) are parties in
an ongoing personal injury action brought by Tyler Dahlstrand in Stephenson County,
Illinois.   During the pendency of the Illinois suit, Boldt filed a complaint in Outagamie
County, Wisconsin, seeking a declaratory judgment that  (1) Boldt was not obligated
contractually to procure insurance listing Morse as an additional insured at the time of
Dahlstrand’s accident, and (2) that Morse was not an additional insured under a general
liability policy issued by Travelers Indemnity Company.  (Doc. 1-1 Ex. A, Complaint at ¶ 5.)
Morse removed the action to this court and is asking for a stay of these proceedings while
the Illinois case is litigated fully, pursuant to the Colorado River abstention doctrine.  (Doc.
6.)  See Colo. River Water Conservation Dist. v. U.S., 424 U.S. 800 (1976).  It reasons that
a stay will promote judicial economy, avoid piecemeal litigation, serve fairness and
convenience to the litigants, give deference to the court where litigation involving these
parties was first pending, and allow an Illinois court to rule on issues of Illinois state law.
On the other hand, Boldt seeks remand of this removed case to the Wisconsin state court




citing Morse’s motion as evidence that it does not want this court to exercise jurisdiction
in the matter.  As discussed below, the court will deny Boldt’s motion to remand and grant
Morse’s motion to stay.
Following the removal of this case from the Wisconsin state court, Boldt asked that
it be remanded to that court.  Generally, remand motions relate to procedural defects, such
as untimely removal, Phoenix Container, L.P. v. Sokoloff, 235 F.3d 352, 353 (7th Cir.
2000); omission of necessary documents, Walton v. Bayer Corp., 643 F.3d 994, 998 (7th
Cir. 2011); or failure to obtain consent to removal from all defendants, City of Yorkville ex
rel. Aurora Blacktop Inc. v. Am. S. Ins. Co., 654 F.3d 713, 716 (7th Cir. 2011).  However,
in the instant case, Boldt does not question whether the parties are diverse, whether the
amount in controversy is at least $75,000 as required by 28 U.S. C. § 1332, whether the
notice of removal was timely or whether there were any defects in Morse’s initial filings.
Instead, Boldt submits that Morse has taken inconsistent positions regarding where this
case should proceed by asking this court to abstain from exercising jurisdiction and to defer
to the Stephenson County Illinois Circuit Court, citing Fate v. Buckeye State Mut. Ins. Co.,
174 F. Supp.2d 876, 881 (N.D. Ind.  2001) wherein the district court observed that 28 U.S.
C. Sec 1447(c) “authorize[s] a broad spectrum of challenges to removal.”  Boldt contends
that Morse has essentially withdrawn its request that this court decide their dispute.   But
as famed commentator Paul Harvey may have said, now for the rest of the story.
Therefore, the court now turns to Morse’s motion to stay.
In addressing whether to stay a case pursuant to the Colorado River doctrine, as
requested by Morse, the district court must consider: 1) whether the actions are parallel;
2




and 2) whether there are exceptional circumstances justifying an abstention.  Tyrer v. City
of S. Beloit, 456 F.3d 744, 751 (7th Cir. 2006).   Suits are parallel when “substantially the
same parties are contemporaneously litigating substantially the same issues in another
forum.”   Id. at 752.   And, “it is not necessary that there be formal symmetry between two
actions.”  Id.  In making its decision, a district court should examine whether the suits arise
out of the same facts and raise similar factual and legal issues.   Id.
The documents filed with regard to the pending motions show that the Dahlstrand
matter and the present federal case involve the same parties: Dahlstrand sued Boldt and
Morse in Illinois alleging negligence, and Boldt and Morse are also parties to this action.
Similar issues and underlying facts are present in both cases.  Morse believes that Boldt
was contractually required to procure insurance listing it as an additional insured with
respect to Dahlstrand’s personal injury claim and Boldt asserts that it was not required to
do so.  Boldt’s insurer, Travelers Indemnity Company (“Travelers”), maintains that Morse
was not an additional insured.    Further, in the Dahlstrand matter, Morse asserts a
counterclaim against Boldt alleging that if found negligent it is entitled to contribution from
Boldt because it should have been an “additional insured” under Boldt’s insurance policy
with Travelers.  Moreover, in the present federal action, Boldt seeks a declaratory judgment
as to whether it was contractually obligated to procure insurance listing Morse as an
additional insured respecting the Dahlstrand claim and whether Morse was an additional
insured under Boldt’s insurance policy with Travelers.  Taking these relevant factors, it is
readily apparent that the concurrent Illinois state court action and this federal action are
parallel.
3




After “it is established that the suits are parallel, the court must consider a number
of  non-exclusive  factors  that  might  demonstrate  the  existence  of  exceptional
circumstances.”  Tyrer, 456 F.3d at 751.  These factors include: (1) whether the state has
assumed jurisdiction over the property, (2) the inconvenience of the federal forum, (3) the
desirability of avoiding piecemeal litigation,  (4) the order the concurrent jurisdictions
obtained jurisdiction (5) the source of the governing law, state or federal, (6) the adequacy
of state-court action to protect the federal plaintiff’s rights, (7) the relative progress of the
state and federal proceedings, (8) the presence or absence of concurrent jurisdiction,
(9) the availability of removal, and (10) the vexatious or contrived nature of the federal
claim.  Id. at 754.  However, “[t]he weight to be given to any one factor is determined solely
by the circumstance of the particular case-there is no mechanical formula by which to
determine when a stay is appropriate.”   Id.
With due regard for these factors and the unusual arguments advanced by the
parties, this court’s decision rests on the desirability of avoiding piecemeal litigation.
“Piecemeal litigation occurs when different tribunals consider the same issue, thereby
duplicating efforts and possibly reaching different results.”  La Duke v. Burlington N. R.R.
Co., 879 F.2d 1556, 1560 (7th Cir. 1989).  The counterclaim filed by Morse against Boldt
in the Dahlstrand matter asserts that Boldt breached its contract by failing to procure
insurance identifying Morse as an additional insured respecting the personal injury claim
at issue in the Dahlstrand case.   In this action, Boldt asks for a declaration that it did not
fail to procure insurance coverage for Morse.   Therefore, if Morse and Boldt are allowed
to pursue this issue in both courts, “identical issues will be litigated simultaneously in two
4




different forums, and, under the principles of issue preclusion, an earlier decision in one
court may bind the parties in the other court.   See Id.   Furthermore, the pending motions
show that neither party wishes to proceed in this court at this time.   Indeed, neither party
argued  that  this  declaratory  judgment  action  must  proceed  in  any  court  while  the
Dahlstrand litigation continues in the Stephenson County Circuit Court.   That is truly
exceptional.   Therefore, a stay of this litigation will provide the parties the opportunity to
focus  their  resources,  preserve  judicial  resources  and  avoid  unwarranted  conflict.
Consequently,
IT IS ORDERED that Boldt’s motion to remand (Doc. 12) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Morse’s motion to stay (Doc. 6) is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is administratively closed.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 14th day of June, 2012.
BY THE COURT
/s/ C. N. Clevert, Jr.
C. N. CLEVERT, JR.
CHIEF U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE
5

Download 26606.pdf

Wisconsin Law